Consider the following excerpts from the Presidentís Radio Address
to the Nation;

"This morning I want to talk with you about what we can do to break hold
of gangs and violence in our schools and what we can do to create an atmosphere
in our schools that promotes discipline and order and learning ... I believe we
should give strong support to school districts that decide to require young
students to wear school uniforms. Weíve all seen the tragic headlines screaming
of the death of a teenager who was killed for a pair of sneakers or jewelry or
a designer jacket. In Detroit, a 15-year old boy was shot for his $86 basketball
shoes. In Fort Lauderdale, a 15-year
old student was robbed of his jewelry. Just this past December in Oxon
Hill, Maryland, a 17-year old honor student was killed at a bus stop, caught
in the cross fire during the robbery of another students designer jacket"
(Clinton, "Transcript," 1-2).

Why are we proposing to mandate school uniforms for all elementary and
middle schools students, while at the same time excluding high school students?
Is it not obvious, by the Presidentís own accounting, that the problem
group is teenage students ages 15 and older? Moreover, is there any indisputable
evidence that school uniforms can help cure societyís violence and disciplinary
problems? How reliable are the statistics that show the short term implementation
of school uniforms in a select group of elementary and middle schools prevents
violence? Knowing all of this, are we still willing to freely give up more
of our God given constitutional rights? Worse yet, by accepting this proposal,
are we saying that we are in favor of stifling the creativity and individuality
of our children?

The Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of
Justice, and under the direction of President Clinton, has developed the
Manual of School Uniforms. On February 24, 1996, President Clinton signed
a directive to distribute this manual to the Nationís 1600 public school
districts (Clinton, "Text," 2). Furthermore, the leaders of our schools
appear to have hastily embraced this new proposal. A recent national survey
of 5,500 secondary school principals shows that they feel school uniforms
would help eliminate violence (Tousignant 1). Shawn Ashley, principal in
the Long Beach Unified School District, claims there have been fewer incidents
of fighting since they imposed the mandatory school uniform policy one
year ago. Ashley reports that incidents of fighting has dropped from 1,135
in the 1993-94 school year, to only 554 for the 1994-95 school year (Kennedy
1). Clearly, this is an issue that affects parents across the nation, and
should be carefully examined before giving our unconditional support. I
believe that any proposal is dangerous if it fails to address the real
problem, threatens to diminish our constitutional rights and has been promoted
by using misleading statistics.

There is no question that school uniforms can instill a feeling of school
spirit, school pride and social acceptance. When compared to designer clothes
and name brand basketball shoes, school uniforms can also be a cost effective
solution to school wear. Surely, this is an appealing benefit to those
families that find it difficult, if not impossible, to afford such luxuriance.
Certainly, parents will find that it is easier to shop for their childrenís
school attire, and the students will be able to quickly choose their outfits
for school in the morning.

Unfortunately, as well served as this proposal may appear, school uniforms
can not solve the nationís problems of gang violence. Clearly, these deeply
rooted problems are well beyond the scope of any school uniform policy.
Furthermore, mandating this policy only at the elementary and middle school
level does nothing to curb gang violence occurring at the high schools
across our country. As Loren Siegel, Director of the Public Education Department,
ACLU, points out, school administrators and teachers have been reluctant
to impose the school uniform policy on high school students, because it
most certainly will cause the teenagers to rebel (Siegel 1). Cecilia Smith,
a guidance counselor at Forestville High School in Prince Georgeís, tells
of how teenage students rebelled when school uniforms were tried at their
school. Smith explains that the teenagers were rebelling because they were
afraid that "it was going to take their individuality away" (Tousignant
2).

Also, Siegel argues that younger children can be persuaded to wear school
uniforms. Some children may even like the idea of school uniforms and the
feeling of being part of the school community. Unfortunately, teenagers
are at a point in their lives where expressing their individuality is extremely
important. She describes teenagers as young people that are striving to
express uniqueness in many different ways. Siegel cleverly shows that the
teenagers are already in uniforms of their own choosing -- baggy pants,
T-shirts and baseball caps worn backward (Siegel 1). Clearly, there is
no way that school administrators, teachers and parents could expect the
proposed school uniform policy to be imposed at the high school level.

Up until now, we have discussed why a school uniform policy is futile
in preventing gang violence in our schools. This however, is not the only
problem with the school uniform policy. We still need to examine the effect
that such a proposal would have on our constitutional rights.

Recently, the A.C.L.U. represented twenty-six families in a school uniform
lawsuit against the Long Beach Unified School District. Although the case
resulted in an out-of-court settlement, and both sides tentatively agreed
to certain provisions, this case raised important issues concerning our
legal rights. Barbara Bernstein, executive director of the New York Civil
Liberties Union, reaffirmed the opinion of the A.C.L.U. when she stated
that requiring school uniforms is not only illegal, it is not the solution
to the school systemís problems. Clearly, Bernstein was in favor of President
Clintonís goal, calling it "admirable;" however she pointed out that it
should not be "accomplished at the expense of constitutional rights" (McCarthey
2). Surely, the Long Beach lawsuit has been instrumental in raising the
publicís awareness of the legal ramifications associated with adopting
the school uniform proposal.

One important aspect caused by the litigation surrounding the school
uniform policy is the "opt out" provision. As a condition of the Long Beach
settlement, the school district will attempt to improve the communication
with parents and provide improved exemption procedures. The relevance of
this provision is clearly demonstrated by the reference made in the Manual
of School Uniforms, Item #5: "When a mandatory school uniform policy is
adopted, determine whether to have an Ďopt outí provision" ("Manual" 2).
The reference in this manual instructs the school administrators on how
to provide parents with an exemption from the policy. In some cases, the
parents can "opt" to have their children go to another school. In the case
where all of the schools in the district require uniforms, as is the case
in the Long Beach Unified School District, the parents can "opt" to send
their children to school without uniforms ("Manual" 2). In any case, the
inclusion of this provision in President Clintonís Manual of School Uniforms
shows a genuine concern that a mandatory policy may infringe on our constitutional
rights.

Obviously, one would have to agree that a school uniform policy can
do little to fight gang violence in our schools. Furthermore, we should
all be in agreement that a mandatory school uniform policy is considered
unconstitutional. These issues however, are not the only ones surrounding
the school uniform proposal. To gain an overall understanding of the problem,
discussion of the misleading statistics used in promoting this policy is
necessary.

In order to emphasis his position on the school uniform proposal and
its apparent effectiveness, President Clinton draws attention to the Long
Beach Unified School District as the model system. As Siegel points out,
in an obvious attempt to demonstrate its success, President Clinton misleadingly
reports the Long Beach Schoolís self-generated data showing decreases in
student misconduct. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the other steps
taken by the School District to improve school behavior during the experimental
year. Siegel reports, at the same time the school uniform policy was implemented,
the District began "increasing the number of teachers patrolling the hallways
during class changes" (Siegel 1). Clearly, no one can be sure which change
had the most effect on student behavior. Furthermore, we need to remember
who the gate-keeper of this conclusive data is. Could the school administrators,
in an attempt to promote the effectiveness of their new policy and in light
of the national attention it had drawn, have possibly overlooked certain
infractions during the year?

Whereas, the reliability of the Long Beach case study is clearly questionable,
we must also examine the effects of other changes made at the state level
across the nation. Craig Donegan, editor for Congressional Quarterly, reports
a 1995 survey by the National Conference of Mayors indicating there has
been an increase in the number of youth curfews by 45 percent since 1990.
Donegan also acknowledges that a recent National Governorís Association
(NGA) report states that between 1992 and 1994 there have been 27 states
that have passed laws making it easier to prosecute children as adults
(Donegan 2). In addition, Senator John Ashcroft enacted the Violent and
Hardcore Juvenile Offender Reform Act of 1995 (Donegan 1). Ashcroft also
indicated that he wants the funding of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974 to be contingent upon states prosecuting juveniles age 14 and
up as adults. Many cities and states have adopted laws that hold the parents
of delinquent children accountable for their chldrenís behavior (Donegan
2). Clearly, there have been many changes made at the national, state and
local levels which have been attributed to having a positive effect on
juvenile violence. Regardless of these changes, there is very little correlation
between requiring school uniforms at the elementary and middle school levels,
and the recent reduction in teenage violence at our high schools.

In conclusion, the failure to address the real problem of violence in
our schools, itís impact on our constitutional rights and the misleading
manner in which it has been proposed, clearly illustrates why we should
avert from an unconditional acceptance of the mandatory school uniform
policy. It is very clear that we have a serious juvenile violence problem
in our country, and positive efforts are constantly being made to alleviate
the problem. However, we should not fall victim to the illusion that requiring
school uniforms for children under the age of 14 can prevent this teenage
violence. Likewise, we need to remember that our constitution insures our
right to creativity. We have an obligation to insure that our children
are allowed to grow, to be creative and to be independent thinkers. Finally,
there has not been any official case studies conducted that prove that
school uniforms can prevent teenage violence. The disseminated and relaxed
data, which has been so cleverly capitalized upon by our administrators,
is inconclusive at best. Our tendency to unconditionally accept a school
uniform proposal is just one more example of societyís apathetic approach
to problem solving. We all need to take a more active role when addressing
issues that concern the rights and welfare of our family.

Bibliography

Clinton, William J. Text of Presidential Memo to Secretary of Education
on School Uniforms Washington DC: U.S. Newswire, 1996.

Clinton, William J. Transcript of Presidential Radio Address to the
Nation.
Washington DC: U.S. Newswire,
1996.